Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
Here is yet another ERISA claim being denied by the Federal Courts. This case is from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and is styled, Deo G. Shanker v. United Omaha Life Insurance Company.
The District Court granted United’s summary judgment motion and this appeal followed.
Shanker was President of a company called Intracare and United was the insurer under an ERISA plan which provided for long-term-disability (LTD) benefits. To qualify for LTD benefits, Shanker had to become “Disabled due to an Injury or Sickness, while insured under the Policy.” Disabled is defined to mean: “Because of Injury or Sickness, a significant change in Your mental or physical functional capacity has occurred in which you are prevented from performing at least one of the Material Duties of Your Regular Occupation on a part-time or full-time basis ….” Material Duties is defined as “the essential tasks, functions, and operations relating to an occupation that cannot reasonably omitted or modified” and includes “the ability to work for an employer on a full-time bases.” Regular Occupation is defined as “the occupation You are routinely performing when Your Disability begins.” The definition in the policy also notes:
Your regular occupation is not limited to Your specific position . . . but will instead be considered to be a similar position or activity based on job descriptions included in the most current edition of the U.S. Department of Labor Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). We have the right to substitute or replace the DOT with another service or other information that We determine to be of comparable purpose, with or without notice. To determine Your regular occupation, We will look at Your occupation as it is normally performed in the national economy, instead of how work tasks are performed for a specific employer, at a specific location, or in a specific area or region.
Shanker suffered a heart attack and underwent open heart quadruple bypass surgery. He then applied for LTD benefits which was granted based on the conditions he was experiencing. Later, United sought a review of Shanker’s medical conditions and determined that Shanker no longer met the definition to qualify for LTD benefits. A reading of the case is necessary to see how the Court arrived at its decision to uphold the denial of LTD benefits to Shanker.
This case is another illustration of how difficult it can be to successfully challenge an ERISA plan administrator’s decision to deny benefits to an insured.